DOWNLOAD: Failure to Yield (2009) | Oxfam Statement on "Failure to Yield" | Failure to Yield summary/issue briefing
For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.

That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concludes that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield -- the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, was running an advertising campaign at the time of the report release warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its “advanced seeds… significantly increase crop yields…” The report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.

The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results.

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential—or intrinsic—yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors.

The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects).

Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

edit; That is not even taking into consideration the global risk of this untested insanely reckless endeavor pursued solely for profit and control.

There are many misconceptions about mosquitoes. Here is a short video to explain.

The video basic explains that there are certain people who are predisposed to be bitten.

To prevent mosquito bites there are only two ways to do it:

1. Insect repellent with deet
2. Over the counter Antihistamines

Or you could build yourself a screened in back porch/swimming pool like people in the south

They are only doing it urban areas where malaria or other blood bourne diseases are a major problem and are already seeing great results. People in those places don't have access to antihistamines, deet and sure as **** can't screen in their tin shack or outdoor sewage puddle.

As long as people have known how to farm and raise livestock, we have genetically changed our sources of food.

They really need to pick a different term than GMO.

GMO = Genetically Modified Organism a very different thing than hybrids. GMOs are created by altering their DNA, it's a new life form introduced into the world at large without testing the long range affects PLEASE READ ABOUT IT, IT'S IMPORTANT.

Baja if you want to get science out of food production you really need to pick which billion starve.

Actually you are quite wrong. The way to feed the worlds people is to have small farms distributed throughout the world which feed local people. It's really just that simple. However, big Ag will tell you differently yet big Ag breaks all the basic rules of nature. It hoards massive amounts of animals into a confined feed lot (which is disease ridden, the animals are living in their own feces) and then feeds them genetically engineered bulk food (corn) and then conveyor belts the animals into a meat grinder where the tainted product eventually ends up on your plate at home.

No thanks.

I'd rather have a cow from a local farmer that has been raised stress free on natural foliage (yes, this is very possible and easy to do) then at the proper time can go to a butcher where the meat can be harvested.

Again, this is very possible all throughout the world. You don't have to conglomerate crops and livestock in order to feed people. What you do have to have is many small ag coops distributed around the country which feed the locals within those communities. This also cuts down on pollution, for example, why ship a cow across country to be slaughtered and then shipped back to you in boxes for consumption? Right now, there are large hog operations that have agreed to sell their hogs, which are raised here in America, to slaughter houses in China so that the meat can be processed and shipped right back to Americans for consumption. Does this make sense to anyone?

This is the terrifying aspect of the OP: “Gene drive,” Regalado writes in a review of current articles on the topic, “would cause chosen genes, including man-made ones, to quickly spread through a species as its members reproduce.”

So, let's say they start messing with viruses? We've already created "super-bugs," and that came simply from our lack of knowledge regarding how to use anti-biotics.

Actually you are quite wrong. The way to feed the worlds people is to have small farms distributed throughout the world which feed local people. It's really just that simple. However, big Ag will tell you differently yet big Ag breaks all the basic rules of nature. It hoards massive amounts of animals into a confined feed lot (which is disease ridden, the animals are living in their own feces) and then feeds them genetically engineered bulk food (corn) and then conveyor belts the animals into a meat grinder where the tainted product eventually ends up on your plate at home.

No thanks.

I'd rather have a cow from a local farmer that has been raised stress free on natural foliage (yes, this is very possible and easy to do) then at the proper time can go to a butcher where the meat can be harvested.

Again, this is very possible all throughout the world. You don't have to conglomerate crops and livestock in order to feed people. What you do have to have is many small ag coops distributed around the country which feed the locals within those communities. This also cuts down on pollution, for example, why ship a cow across country to be slaughtered and then shipped back to you in boxes for consumption? Right now, there are large hog operations that have agreed to sell their hogs, which are raised here in America, to slaughter houses in China so that the meat can be processed and shipped right back to Americans for consumption. Does this make sense to anyone?

Multiple the amount of pasture it takes to raise a cow to slaughter by the number of cows consumed. Now look at available land and make your own conclusion.

DOWNLOAD: Failure to Yield (2009) | Oxfam Statement on "Failure to Yield" | Failure to Yield summary/issue briefing
For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.

That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concludes that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield -- the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, was running an advertising campaign at the time of the report release warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its “advanced seeds… significantly increase crop yields…” The report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.

The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results.

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential—or intrinsic—yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors.

The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects).

Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

Multiple the amount of pasture it takes to raise a cow to slaughter by the number of cows consumed. Now look at available land and make your own conclusion.

yes, how many cows days per acre? There is plenty of land. I'd imagine you can easily get 40 cow days per acre across 80% of the continental USA. But you are correct, it would take a massive change in philosophy by people here in the US to think this way.

You are blind. I said science. I live on a production farm, work for a top 4 chemical company and have a degree in ag science. Save your propaganda for someone who has not seen behind the curtain.

The truth will eventually prevail and nature will be the barer let's hope it's not too late. They are screwing with the basic building block of life forms. They are altering DNA, something that has never been done before. They are creating species that have never existed before. Think about that for a minute!

I think the key to the majority of these issues is problem number one: Reducing the human population. That's the one thing that's broken that we never try to fix. Instead, we keep trying to come up with patches that might allow us to ignore problem number one for a limited amount of time before we have to come up with the next patch.

I think the key to the majority of these issues is problem number one: Reducing the human population. That's the one thing that's broken that we never try to fix. Instead, we keep trying to come up with patches that might allow us to ignore problem number one for a limited amount of time before we have to come up with the next patch.